[rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy Development Process Bis

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 18, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no
>> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not
>> a way to determine consensus from the list.
> 
> I read
> "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,
> the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within
> 2 weeks."
> as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare
> consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.
> 
> And I don't like it.
> So much that I had to drop everything and voice my opposition to this
> proposed change.
> 
> Please note: I also think that all the other points Jordi raises are
> very valid and important. But this one is a very big change. And as
> mentioned, I oppose.
> 
> If someone wants my proposal for improvement of this one part:
> replace
> "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,
> the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within
> 2 weeks."
> 
> with
> "At the end of a meeting the chairs may pronounce their intentions, in
> case there are no further substation developments regarding this policy
> on the mailing list.

May I suggest that the word “substantive” replace “substation” in the preceding
paragraph?

> A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
> Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
> mailing list, preferably as soon as possible after the Public Policy
> Meeting. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The Working
> Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public
> Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has
> been achieved.”

I support this proposed language. I would, however, like to augment it as follows:

“Any substantial objection to a proposal during this last call period must be
fully and adequately addressed prior to a determination of consensus.”

Owen